From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751098AbbJBTZA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:25:00 -0400
Received: from mail-yk0-f172.google.com ([209.85.160.172]:36077 "EHLO
	mail-yk0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750844AbbJBTY6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:24:58 -0400
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 15:24:53 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 07/18] kthread: Allow to cancel kthread work
Message-ID: <20151002192453.GA7564@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <1442840639-6963-1-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com>
 <1442840639-6963-8-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.com>
 <20150922193513.GE17659@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20150925112617.GA3122@pathway.suse.cz>
 <20150928170314.GF2589@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20151002154336.GC3122@pathway.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151002154336.GC3122@pathway.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello,

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 05:43:36PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> IMHO, we need both locks. The worker manipulates more works and
> need its own lock. We need work-specific lock because the work
> might be assigned to different workers and we need to be sure
> that the operations are really serialized, e.g. queuing.

I don't think we need per-work lock.  Do we have such usage in kernel
at all?  If you're worried, let the first queueing record the worker
and trigger warning if someone tries to queue it anywhere else.  This
doesn't need to be full-on general like workqueue.  Let's make
reasonable trade-offs where possible.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun